Talk:Tactical Surface Fighter/@comment-27788187-20160305043926/@comment-4391208-20160306153631
''-a few seconds, not several, a few. To *get down*. This applies particulary in TSF - TSF combat. I don't think I implied lasers so I don't get why you wrote dodging laser BETA into it. Several > Few '' You made a continuation in a list of responses assuming BETA vs TSF combat but never clarified your preferred opponent(s); TSFs exist because of BETA but according to you, all of your considerations were made under TSF vs TSF and not TSF vs BETA/TSF. Even the F-22A considered anti-BETA capabilities in its function, it simply tacked on anti-TSF capablities as well without sacrificing anything from its base design that wasn't already there. Which was the intent of your first few comments no matter how I read them, but now you've changed your views to being "the same material providing equal protection". You only said that it should function like normal TSF protection. You never specified a direct number, either; while a few may be considered more than several there is no concrete usage dictating that they cannot refer to the same range of values 1 to 10. TSFs already perform avoidance within two seconds, they're not going to get magically faster than two seconds outside of predicting the future. How many, then, is "a few"? ''-Where again did I say I was cutting down on pilot protection? '' In your second-last comment that says that it'll break against things it shouldn't. You even said that in your latest comment. So it's harder. Then what's next? You never gave a follow-up to that in all your comments. There has to be a purpose of it being harder other than a counterpoint to it being lighter rather than just "this might be to OP'd, better give it an unecessary flaw". This sentence carries the meaning that compared to normal TSF armor it's actually weaker. This directly affects pilot protection. If not, don't word it that way. In your fourth-last you said that boosting the thickness or amount of that armor on critical spots would counter any weaknesses. But if your armor is brittle, any amount boosted is going to shatter inwards, at best, destroying equipment underneath, at worst, killing your pilot. This is normal behavior of materials. If you have electronics in the way then the only difference is that the electronics take the brunt of it, which will handicap your system anyways. Your proposed design is introducing faults where there hadn't been before but you never addressed my concerns about it. While I appreciate your fact-finding on historical warfighting data you've been going on and on about it while marginalizing the original direction which was about TSFs. You also spend a lot of time talking about constructions of tanks and aircraft in WWII. Sure, I answered about the Zero, but none of the later information is worded in relation to how you think this might work on TSFs, and getting hit with autocannon shells isn't the same as getting hit by a Grappler claw - or in your case since you only want to do TSF vs TSF, getting struck by a Melee Halberd or knife. So I don't really get any links you're trying to put up between the two, if any at all. HESH rounds would kill TSFs even faster than armor-piercing in this case. I don't mind the settings consistency thing but you didn't even address my issue about Blade Edge Armor either. You can tell me that the Zero was killed by tactics but your proposed change doesn't take any tactics into account or specify a tactical need beyond "if it's more maneuverable it's better". Yes, the Zero was more maneuverable. It was also killed by tactics. So to me, you acknowledged the main fault which was tactics, then proceeded to ignore tactics that might be in play while proposing "the Zero of TSFs". I don't think I even understand your line of thought anymore. You know what? Just forget the whole thing.